1. The Defendant’s executory exemplification of the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2012Da167938 Decided November 2, 2012.

1. The facts of recognition (the fact that there is no dispute, Gap 1 and 16 evidence) B transferred to the Plaintiff on November 1, 2014, the articles listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant articles”) to repay the Plaintiff’s debt amounting to KRW 22 million.

As a creditor against B, on March 24, 2015, the Defendant executed a seizure of corporeal movables on the instant goods based on the enforcement title stated in the Disposition No. 1 of this case.

2. The owner of the instant goods is the Plaintiff, and the execution of seizure of the Defendant’s above goods is illegal as against the goods owned by the Plaintiff, not the debtor B.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim seeking the exclusion of compulsory execution against the owner of the article of this case is justified.